I didn't get offended by the facts, I was not offended at all. I curse a lot, I wasn't cursing at you, "doesn't accomplish shit" is just the phrase I use when something doesn't accomplish shit.

I misspoke myself, you can compare one country to another all you want, but the results won't be significant because you have no way of controlling for other variables such as population density, cultural background, and economic stability, just to name a few. If you want to draw any meaningful conclusions about gun control, you need to look at how the implementation of gun control has effected the area that implemented it, or examine a very large number of nations in a statistical analysis. Every single one of my sources did one of these things. Also, why did you cut out the greater part of my post? It had some of the most relevant information, including links that would have told you all this.

There were a couple reasons for my choice of nations, 1. the OP is British, and was posing a question to us here in the USA. 2. The USA and the UK are probably two of the easiest nations to compare... We share a language, we both have predominantly Caucasian populations, we are both first world nations, we both elect our government officials ( in slightly different ways, but still).

Now I will grant the serious discrepancy in population density, the UK is an island approximately the size of Washington State. However, this is the reason that I included the per 100,000 stats, because it was the best possible way to address the discrepancy.

As for why I cut most of your post, it was a simple matter of your post being rather long, and quoting a long post within a long post within a long post becomes rather ungainly and starts to look ridiculous, so I simply quoted the part I was replying to and cut the rest. I did in fact read your whole post, though I did not read all the reference sites, as I had other things I needed to do and had run out of time to address this topic.

Those similarities are superficial when compared to our cultural differences, otherwise, your violent crime rate wouldn't be so much higher than ours. You have a monarchy, even if it's mostly or entirely for show, it still impacts your culture, as does being a part of Europe. I imagine being on the receiving end of so much bombing in WW2 impacted your culture too. You can't just compare two countries and draw meaningful results. It is exactly like the thing news stations do saying how since one guy who went psycho played video games it obviously means playing video games makes you psycho. It's not even enough data to establish correlation, let alone causation.

And that's fair, I was just curious why you went through the effort of cutting out a large chunk of my post, but that makes sense.

I'm sorry but I am a bit confused.... Are you British or American? Your last post makes that unclear, I was born and raised in the USA.

As far as smuggling goes, if Wikipedia is to be believed the USA has absolutely no need to smuggle guns INTO the country as Canada is ranked 14 on the fire arm production list and neither Mexico nor any South American nations even list.... On the other hand, the USA ranks 1st. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Granted things do get smuggled in and out of the country but the firearms used by the smugglers have a higher chance of coming from this nation than any other, with the exception of maybe Russia, if only because we still have large numbers of unaccounted for cold war stocks... but those are depleting as that was over 20 years ago now.

Rafael Dera:Simple solution: legalise guns. Have bullets cost 10000$ each.No harm having people walk around wielding what are in essense metal clubs.

Government gets the taxes, obviously :-)

Because, you know, criminals TOTALLY buy THEIR guns legit.

Three people have suggested [I'm still counting] and it doesn't stop being idiotic. So what would happen, if say, the criminal just bought a 9mm mag with ammo through say E-Bay for less then 10,000$?

It's a joke from a Chris Rock skit. Don't bother yourself over it.

What's alarming is that in the shooter's state, gun sales have balooned. Either people want to buy guns before potential gun control appears, or they think they're Charles Bronson, and plan to protect theatres from crazed gunmen. That latter one gets on my goat especially.

Do they honestly think another guy is going to attack a theatre? Now that every patron brings a gun in? Won't they do what they always do, and attack somewhere where people wouldn't have thought to carry guns? Like a swimming pool? Even if a gunman did attack another cinema, what are the odds that someone in the audience is going to pick them off in the dark, amoung a panicking crowd? Jesus people. Think about it for a minute.

The inflate could be any number of things unless your numbers are strictly to Colorado where the wannabe Joker had a killing spree.

If your numbers are not then it could simply be more people are just falling in love with guns [SHOCKER I haven't] or, doing exactly what you said, thinking ahead before the government cracks down, stupidly on it.

The amendment that has the right to bear arms, in the writers [Thomas Jefferson] own words, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." For all intensive purposes, the above statement means that, once a government goes corrupt, they want to allow a second-generation of them in essence to come and fight for what they believe is right.

I ask you, if a man went on a fourteen people killing spree while operating a motor vehicle [AKA he hit fourteen dudes with his SUV] should we crack down on cars so that this didn't happen again? Should we crack down on knives that can be carried easily on your person to stop knife related murders? A gun is a tool, a gun is not a murderer. A gun used in a murder had no way to stop him from being used to be murdered, its a tool, a gun used to hunt animals for selling of furs or meat is not a good-little-gun, its a tool.

IN CONCLUSION, since the topic is apparently on the Aurora Theater Shooting and if or if not the US country should take action on guns, I have this quote "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

There is no way to stop premeditated murders, there isn't, so stop assuming making premeditated murderer use something else but a gun would stop a murder, and there is no guarantee they wont use a gun illegally.

Aprilgold:Question to people who are anti-guns: What do you think happens when a criminal who wanted to shoot someone in the face does if he doesn't get a firearm?

I'll answer it, they either start doing things like creating highly-complex chemical bombs or they pick up a rock and smash the dudes head in with it. Take their rock away and they'll use a branch. Take their branch away and they'll use the fists. You could go down a endless list of ridiculous bans and you would still have crime.

WHEN THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY!

The pro to letting your citizens carry fire-arms is that they can stop people who are mugging / raping / trying to kill them without having to wait five or ten minutes for the cops if they get a phone in that time.

Also, banning guns doesn't mean that people won't get them or make them, look at the prohibition.

But in those cases it's easier to get a tip off that something is up. Massacres like this take planning, when you start bringing en-masse chemicals it's more likely to attract police attention especially in the age of Terror scares.

Just because it can't take away a problem completely does not mean that there should be no steps taken to reduce it. Otherwise you might as well have everyone the right to smoke pot.

AHEHAH, I NEVER SAID IT WAS RELATED TO THE AURORA COUNTY BATMAN: RISES THEATER SHOOTING! Another thing that man used was chemicals to create several different bombs, should we ban citizens from using chemicals in case they want to use them for bad?

Guns are used for more then murder mate, they are used for recreation. [trapshooting]

While here, I'm going to adress something, do you have a clue on how the process to get guns in America is, and can you detail it before reading what I have to say?

If the answer is anything but yes then you are in no way suited to argue gun control in a country where you don't understand the country in general.

Gun's in America are not sold with happy-meals, the process to buying a gun where I currently live as follows, you go to the gunshop and pick a gun, the seller, depending on the weapon will take a certain number of days to do a extensively background search you, this can be as little as three days to, I'm just guessing on this number, a week.

How, exactly, do you lessen the above without full blown taking out buying guns? In the case of the Aurora Shooter, he had a clean record when he bought the fire-arms, if he somehow lives and gets a miracle and eventually gets to leave jail, he would have no way of requiring fire arms. This system helps prevent return villains while still allowing guns to be sold to fanatics and, in other cases, premeditated criminals.

Saying its also "easier to trace" is stupid, we can trace the make and model of many guns, along with their bullets and calibers just by what was left at the crime scene [bullet hole, casing, shelling etc] and track it down to a possible suspect by just standard operating procedure. Making it a knife does nothing more then, instead of a bullet wound, it is several cuts and lacerations.

The guns in the Columbine shooting were obtained illegally, how would making stricter gun control stop people from getting guns when two kids very easily got enough firepower to start a massacre?

And, for a record, the place that the Aurora County Theater Shooter chose was a no-gun place. All that had happened, since it was a no-gun place, ensured that the only people who could possibly fight back, were cops. Great idea many people in this thread, guns totally don't have the upside of being able to fight on a even playing field with another marksman, thus lets remove guns from the general public to stop premeditated criminals, which this won't inhibit at all.

In conclusion, gun control does nothing except for change the weapon that a murderer uses and having super strict no-gun policies where you shoot them on sight if their holding anything with a semblance of a gun won't stop gun related murders, but instead everyone will be happy cutting each other's throats.

I'm going to say that I'm in support of greater gun control laws in America, but not necessarily against gun ownership. What I think is that people should probably get psychologically checked before they're allowed to handle a weapon. And don't tell me about the whole 'right to bear arms thing'. That was from a different era when it was basically a necessity.

"Guns are for protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face"- Priceless

On an actual on-topic note, I think guns should be legal to carry, but I would want some pretty thorough checks. Ideally, I'd like all guns to be tagged with some kind of GPS beacon as well, but technology still has far to go.

I don't really like the idea of anyone walking down the street thinking "I could shoot a bunch of people here" and actually being able to.

Also, on a note to whoever it was suggested guns allow you to shoot other people with guns, bear in mind a lot of shooting rampages have happened in america where the police have arrived before the nutjob ran into someone with a gun.

Personally, I would like to own one, but carrying it around with me would be where I draw the line.

My personal opinion, bad people are gonna do bad things and no Government, religious, political, social or otherwise group can stop bad people from doing bad things no matter how many laws or restrictions they pass. At best all they can do is hope (and do mean HOPE) to limit bad people from doing bad things, punishing the many due to the actions of the few is foolish at best.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

Wouldn't you feel safer knowing the guy mugging you doesn't have a gun. I'd rather lose my wallet then risk getting shot for trying to shoot them.

One needs only turn to the Federalist Papers to answer these questions.

The founding fathers blew off the still-smoking barrels of their glocks and holstered their sawed off shotguns. Benjamin Franklin took a long drag off his quintuple sticky icky blunt before placing both hands directly on his junk. "The esteemed gentleman Hamilton agrees thusly that all citizens forthwith are endowed by their creator the right to pack heat, forsooth?"

Hamilton drew his sword and bisected the still-quivering hybrid in a single, smooth motion.He bowed his head and confirmed "Forthwith, Mr. Franklin."

It is rather amusing that he thinks we're allowed to defend ourselves, as long as it's nothing that'll hurt the person trying to kill us or give us an unfair advantage. After all, rapists and home invaders deserve a fair fight!

Holy flying donkey-genitals! I kind of expected this many responses though, so I shouldn't sound (read?) so shocked.

I do think you are allowed to defend yourself. And I do think you are allowed to do so at the expense of the safety of your assailant(s). What I do not consider acceptable is putting anyone else in danger to do so. So unless you and your assailant are alone in the middle of a street, with no openings (alleys, windows, doors or the like) that could hold other people (within reasonable firing range, after all, a person in an alley fifty metres behind you isn't at risk if your assailant is in front of you), then any use of a firearm could potentially harm people not involved in the conflict (and more than likely not responsible for it). And honestly, I don't give two shits what the other person did, because when you endanger someone who isn't responsible for your current situation, you overstep the line, you do exactly what the person causing you problems is doing, so by your logic, if you used a firearm for self-defense, anyone else in the vicinity who is potentially endangered by your actions could stop you from doing so, even if it meant endangering another person to do so, because by endangering someone not responsible for your predicament, you've created a completely new scenario of victimisation, and you are most certainly not the victim in that one.

Short version: You can defend yourself. You can do so at the expense of the one responsible for the problem (provided such action would actually relieve the problem in any way). What you cannot do is defend yourself at the expense of people not responsible for the problem.

matrix3509:Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot. Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Which won't actually stop them from acquiring a gun.So many guns are floating around the US it wouldn't be THAT hard.

matrix3509:Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot. Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

So you don't want guns in the hands of safe and responsible people, you'd rather have them in the hands of dangerous, irresponsible criminals? Wow, that's seriously messed up.

It's not criminals I don't want to have guns, it's regular, irrational stupid people. To wit, Zimmerman wasn't a criminal mastermind. The worst atrosities are often comitted in a misguided attempt to do what they've convinced themselves is the right thing.

For example, I've been shot at twice for knocking on a door because I was a teenage boy and in certain minds, young + probably has penis = OH MY GOD I'M GETTING ROBBED I GOTTA DEFEND MYSELF. On the other hands, the amounts of times I've been attacked with a gun by someone with ill intent is roughly 0. And that's not even mentioning the time I got a bullet through the stomach cause someone had a handgun in their pocket and left the safety off. So as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather criminals have guns than 'normal' people.

cotss2012:Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

TLDRStill, this is the smartest response to the OP.

The drop in deaths from accidental discharges would more than make up for the amount of people who'd die from not having a gun, not even counting the amount of people those people who're out to "defend themselves" kill in the name of the change in their pockets.

Deshara:So as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather criminals have guns than 'normal' people.

You mean, you consider irrational, stupid, and prone to breaking the law to be better than irrational, stupid, and unlikely to break the law?

Yeah, what with 'prone to breaking the law' being so rare that I, having lived years in east St. Louis, downtown Detroit, Philadelphia and projects in Anchorage, all of which being extremely high crime areas, haven't actually met a "criminal". I have, however, met regular people, and regular people are prone to lapses in judgement. It doesn't take an evil, sinister psychopath to break the law, only five seconds of poor judgement and a legally owned concealed firearm.

Besides, what would the kind of people who'd go through the trouble of smuggling highly regulated firearms into the country if they were to be outlawed want with me once they get them? I'm just some guy. As far as I'm concerned, a gun is less liable to be used killing people in the hands of someone who's been through tense, illegal situations than the kind of person who accidentally gutshots his wife to death in the home. And, if you don't take my word for it, the former is a minority, statistically speaking. If someone dies to gun, 50% of the time, it's self inflicted.

EDIT: Oh, and most people who're murdered, are killed by someone they knew personally. This whole image of a psychopath who stalks the streets killing strangers is complete shit, just like the whole pedophile hunt of the late 90's and 2000's, where our culture comes up with this image of depraved perverts who go around snatching children, when in reality, most child abuses are commited by caretakers or guardians who, like most people commiting a victimising crime, are normal, regular people who had a lapse of judgement.

Actually, of the ~32,000 people who died from gun-related injuries in 2010 in the US, here's how it breaks down:

Homicide: 35%Suicide: 63%Accident: 2%

So, statistically, it's 18x more likely that somebody will murder you with a gun than that you'll shoot yourself accidentally. And 32x more likely that you'll shoot yourself on purpose rather than by accident.

Well, London didn't fare so well with the riots now did they? That said, I think there are a couple of things. First being, Canada has the same gun laws and the rate of crime is almost non-existent. That tells you that it's not a law problem, it's a country problem. The American culture is built on fear and hate. You can't deny that, and that obviously helps crime.

Now, to the question, criminal would get their guns either way if they were ilegal, but citizens, wouldn't be able. ALTHOUGH, I do think AK-47's or the AR that Mr. Holmes used should be ilegal (those type of assault weapons) because people don't buy those to defend their homes.

Now, to the question, criminal would get their guns either way if they were ilegal, but citizens, wouldn't be able. ALTHOUGH, I do think AK-47's or the AR that Mr. Holmes used should be ilegal (those type of assault weapons) because people don't buy those to defend their homes.

Most people who buy those types of weapons do so with the intent to never hit anything except paper targets placed downrange in a safe shooting environment. Or just because they're marvels of technology with historic importance and people want to collect that sort of thing with no intent to ever fire off a single round.

Now, to the question, criminal would get their guns either way if they were ilegal, but citizens, wouldn't be able. ALTHOUGH, I do think AK-47's or the AR that Mr. Holmes used should be ilegal (those type of assault weapons) because people don't buy those to defend their homes.

Most people who buy those types of weapons do so with the intent to never hit anything except paper targets placed downrange in a safe shooting environment. Or just because they're marvels of technology with historic importance and people want to collect that sort of thing with no intent to ever fire off a single round.

Unfortunately for those people, these things do happen every once in a while and I do not believe that lives should be at stake for the sake of collecting something.

Now, to the question, criminal would get their guns either way if they were ilegal, but citizens, wouldn't be able. ALTHOUGH, I do think AK-47's or the AR that Mr. Holmes used should be ilegal (those type of assault weapons) because people don't buy those to defend their homes.

Most people who buy those types of weapons do so with the intent to never hit anything except paper targets placed downrange in a safe shooting environment. Or just because they're marvels of technology with historic importance and people want to collect that sort of thing with no intent to ever fire off a single round.

Unfortunately for those people, these things do happen every once in a while and I do not believe that lives should be at stake for the sake of collecting something.

Then we should probably ban any sort of knife or sword collection as well.

I support gun control in the UK but not in the US. I will now answer your question to explain this further:

The ocean. Guns dont magically fly into England. And since we are NOT a major armors producer (barely anything for civilians anyway) they have two options.

1. Ambush and steal from a military base - fucking hard

2. Get a boat loaded with arms through border patrol, continue to get ammo and more arms this way while dodging all border patrol units using a LONG chain of suppliers from outside the UK - hard and expensive.

The US has arms suppliers. The US has borders with Mexico who aren't shy on guns. American criminals can get guns EVEN if they were banned no issue. English criminals dont have the organisation, man power or money to get them unless they are a lethally efficient cartel. And they are not gonna use those guns to hold up random people for 10 quid. Small time criminals do NOT get guns, people breaking into your house will not have guns. Usually these people are met with the armed response unit.

Its too late for the US, guns are too common already. The UK is doing good though.

What's alarming is that in the shooter's state, gun sales have balooned. Either people want to buy guns before potential gun control appears, or they think they're Charles Bronson, and plan to protect theatres from crazed gunmen. That latter one gets on my goat especially.

Do they honestly think another guy is going to attack a theatre? Now that every patron brings a gun in? Won't they do what they always do, and attack somewhere where people wouldn't have thought to carry guns? Like a swimming pool? Even if a gunman did attack another cinema, what are the odds that someone in the audience is going to pick them off in the dark, amoung a panicking crowd? Jesus people. Think about it for a minute.

The inflate could be any number of things unless your numbers are strictly to Colorado where the wannabe Joker had a killing spree.

The numbers are taken from Colorado, in the week immediately after the shooting.

Should we crack down on knives that can be carried easily on your person to stop knife related murders?

Already did in the UK, specifically because of high knife crimes. Concealable knives are probably the most dangerous weapon widely available to the GB public, though you tend not to hear news stories about people running amok with them in a crowded place, killing dozens of people. It's also worth noting that America already has stringent regulations over switchblades and other such concealable knives. Far more so than guns, in fact. (Including, curiously enough, Colorado).

A gun is a tool, a gun is not a murderer. A gun used in a murder had no way to stop him from being used to be murdered, its a tool, a gun used to hunt animals for selling of furs or meat is not a good-little-gun, its a tool.

Everyone knows its a tool. But it happens to be a tool specifically designed for killing people, and it has made murder really easy in the US. What about cars? you ask. Well, considering that cars are not designed to kill people, make fairly impractical murder weapons, are expensive, and require extensive training, testing, license and insurance to get hold of one, it is safe to say that cars are already well regulated. Before someone mentions it, I am well aware of the high death rates at the hands of car accidents, but then US citizens are in cars for an average of 100 hours a year. They get quite a lot more day to day use out of cars than guns, so its natural that accidental fatalities should be higher.

There is no way to stop premeditated murders, there isn't, so stop assuming making premeditated murderer use something else but a gun would stop a murder, and there is no guarantee they wont use a gun illegally.

You can make murder much harder by taking the tools away. Few tools allow individuals to successfully massacre crowds of people, and you might have noticed that these massacres are far less common in countries which don't permit gun ownership.

I mentioned previously that as any attempt at nationwide gun control in the US is impossible, these discussions are mostly pointless. In reflection, I think they are worth having, if only to convince people that bringing a gun into a theatre is a waste of time. The real solution to stopping massacres is there, but it will forever be out of reach to a country filled with guns, and incapable of seeing more guns as anything but a solution to the problem of gun violence.

matrix3509:Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

I agree entirely. It's the exact same reason as why kids smoke pot here because alcohol and tobacco are too hard to come by for minors. By making it illegal, it becomes an entirely unregulated trade that exists entirely outside the law.

Plus, remember that america is known internationally as the world's biggest arms dealer. America makes more money off of weapons they sell to foreign armies than any other trade good. Don't believe me? Let me name a few american arms manufacturers: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Palinko, and many more. These companies will sell to anyone, anywhere, as long as they've got the money. Sure there are "laws" preventing them from selling to insurgents and criminals, but they seem to "wind up" in the hands of these men anyway. You don't think the first Iron Man film was entirely based on fiction, do you?

And if these weapon are winding up in the hands of criminals and terrorist the world over, what's to stop them from getting into the hands of american criminals? Hint: the guy in Aurora was wearing illegal military grade armor.

Here's the thing: capitalism is ingrained into humanity's mind. That's all the black market is, corrupted capitalism. Some people want certain goods that are illegal, and they're going to find people willing to sell them. Supply and demand.

I live in Poland, where it's difficult and expensive to get a license and own a gun. But the police/other forces have firearms. Criminals, obviously, also have them.

For me, it's a liberty thing. People should be allowed to do/possess/own/use much more things that they are now. Some restrictions are just not necessary. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue, and if that's the case - the government should go for liberty (in dubio pro libertate).

No one is wondering why women aren't afraid of walking on the streets - every man carries with him a tool that can be potentially used to rape them. And if you can say 'but not everyone is a rapist', then you can easily say 'not everyone is a crazed shooter'.

I also like math:

Average gun crime time - 1minGetting the gun out of holster and shooting - few secondsPolice reaction time - 6min

The US isn't the UK. This is relevant for a great number of reasons. Firearms are plentiful in the US, and gun restriction laws do little to keep them out of the hands of criminals. The fact is that Chicago and DC, two cities which absolutely deny the right to carry firearms, vie with each other each year for the top spot for most violent crime in the country among all other cities. By contrast Vermont, which places no restriction on the carrying of firearms, has the lowest rate of firearm-related deaths among states in the nation.

The more people who carry firearms, the more dangerous it is for potential criminals to commit violent crimes.

But this is all beside the point. The Second Amendment isn't supposed to address any issue of public safety. It assures the rights of citizens to possess firearms so that, should the government exceed its boundaries and trample over the rights of its citizens, the citizens may rise and overthrow the government.

Fact is, America's a mess. While European nations are essentially ethnic strongholds, as much as certain liberals seem to desire to completely change their demographics, the US is a melting pot. And I have to say, the melting pot sure does crackle and spatter. People of different backgrounds don't want to mix either culturally or racially; they find reasons to be sore and grievous with each other; this has given rise to the reasons why whites avoid black neighborhoods, particularly at night, and why you don't see black people get off the bus in Little Italy.

People often say "can't we all just get along." Apparently they can't see the writing on the wall; the peoples do no want to get along. In fact they hate each other. There isn't going to arise a cosmopolitan utopia simply to justify your "weltanschauung."

For my part, I form relationships organically, regardless of racial background. Individually, people can be really great. I, however, do not trust demographic groups; they are all equally dangerous and untrustworthy.

It is rather amusing that he thinks we're allowed to defend ourselves, as long as it's nothing that'll hurt the person trying to kill us or give us an unfair advantage. After all, rapists and home invaders deserve a fair fight!

Holy flying donkey-genitals! I kind of expected this many responses though, so I shouldn't sound (read?) so shocked.

I do think you are allowed to defend yourself. And I do think you are allowed to do so at the expense of the safety of your assailant(s). What I do not consider acceptable is putting anyone else in danger to do so. So unless you and your assailant are alone in the middle of a street, with no openings (alleys, windows, doors or the like) that could hold other people (within reasonable firing range, after all, a person in an alley fifty metres behind you isn't at risk if your assailant is in front of you), then any use of a firearm could potentially harm people not involved in the conflict (and more than likely not responsible for it). And honestly, I don't give two shits what the other person did, because when you endanger someone who isn't responsible for your current situation, you overstep the line, you do exactly what the person causing you problems is doing, so by your logic, if you used a firearm for self-defense, anyone else in the vicinity who is potentially endangered by your actions could stop you from doing so, even if it meant endangering another person to do so, because by endangering someone not responsible for your predicament, you've created a completely new scenario of victimisation, and you are most certainly not the victim in that one.

Short version: You can defend yourself. You can do so at the expense of the one responsible for the problem (provided such action would actually relieve the problem in any way). What you cannot do is defend yourself at the expense of people not responsible for the problem.

so what you are saying is the tweaker with a rusty knife pointed at me has more of a right to safety then a law abiding citizen

and most of the time guns are used in self defense roughly 91%of the time not a single shot is fired i got this information from the National Crime Victimization Survey

Moth_Monk:The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Uhh, no.I own a shotgun, and am looking to increase my gun count with a nice lever action, as well as a bolt action, rifle. Why do I own these guns? Simple: I hunt.

I shoot and eat deer (Freaking delicious), and I shoot nuisance animals for my farmer friends. raccoons and beavers are extremely destructive, and the coyote population is exploding where I am. They kill pets, farm animals, and can even (If the situation is right) attack people. Though admittedly, the 'people attacking' is exceedingly rare. Will still gang up on and kill fido, though.

That's why I own guns. I would also not hesitate to use it for home defense if I felt my life was in danger. But that's an extreme 'last resort'.

I consider myself 'pro gun' for a few reasons, but I'm mostly anti-'anti gun'. What that means is I'm against ridiculous laws and legislation that makes responsible, legal gun owners (Like myself) feel like criminals and horrible people for just wanting to own a gun. People use them to hunt, for home defense, for shooting competitions, and even just to collect them. All of those things aren't unreasonable.

Are guns dangerous? Yes. But any tool used improperly is dangerous.

All that being said, I'm from Canada, and I actually like our current system of gun legislation. You have to apply for a gun license (Which includes an extensive background check), and take a course on gun use and safety before you're permitted to purchase and own a firearm and ammunition. I do think a lot of US states have extremely lax gun laws, but I'd hate to live in the UK or any other country that's the exact opposite of those lax US states.

I like my gun, and I want to own more. I hunt every year, and enjoy target shooting and clay pigeon shooting. I'm extremely responsible with my firearms, and I'm against any law or legislation or politician or person who wants to take them away from me because someone else used an illegally (Or legally) acquired firearm for illegal purposes. Punish the criminals, not the responsible owners.